fixed gear vs. retracts

[Wayne Galligan]

Right on George.

Take offs are optional
Landings are MANDATORY

WG

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GeorgeF." <av8tor at flash.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: fixed gear vs. retracts


> At 08:39 PM 7/16/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >The composite fixed gear designs of today are quite the overkill in terms
> >of strength, rigidity and weight. They could be made far lighter, less
> >rigid and cheaply enough where, as they break on a hard landing, simply
> >pull the pieces out and toss them
>
>
> If people would learn how to land then strength wouldn't be a problem.  It
> surprises me to hear people say they liked fixed gear better because they
> were bending/breaking retracts.
>
> Can anyone truthfully say that fixed gear look better?  Thought pattern
was
> about smooth, graceful, and looking goood?
>
> Been into R/C since 1983.  I have YET to break a gear and only ever bent
> one gear ever so slightly.  99% of my flights were off grass fields and
> some of them were pretty rough.  No I didn't use oversized balloon tires,
I
> used small chrome weeks with foam tires.
>
> I guess maybe the maneuver of the month should be LANDINGS?
>
> George
> http://www.MilAirComms.com
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030717/79f02bd0/attachment.html